Project spending may describe context, but it does not by itself establish what the applicant knows. Focus on relevant experience and evidence.
Budget the review separately
Ask which records need professional review or translation and what official charges apply. Do not assume an expensive project creates a stronger immigration claim. Clarify scope before commissioning extensive technical summaries.
Budgets swell when a technical summary is commissioned before anyone has decided what it must prove. The review that prevents this takes an hour: list the specific knowledge claims, and beside each one name the document that already supports it. Most claims turn out to be covered by records the employer holds, and the remaining one or two are what a paid summary should address.
The single record that most often removes the need for an expensive write-up is the internal post-implementation review, which already states what was tried, what was rejected and why. Keep official charges attached to the underlying request separate from professional fees, since they are published and move on their own schedule. Hypothetical example: a corporate treasury group is quoted for a full technical report on a discarded cash-forecasting model, and the existing post-implementation review answers three of the four questions at no additional cost.